Madras High Court
P.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner Of Geology on 15 December, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CAV ON 18/06/2014
DATED: 15/12/2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.8032 of 2014
P.Shanmugam ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commissioner of Geology
and Mining,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032,
2.The District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to execute the Lease Deed in favour of the petitioner and permit him to carry on quarrying operation in his Patta lands comprised in S.F.No.192/2B of Koothanatham Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, measuring an extent of 1.25.5 Hectares, as per the order of the first respondent in his proceedings in R.C.No.10633/MM6/2008, dated 29.04.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Shanmugasundar, G.A.
* * * * *
O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to execute a Lease Deed in favour of the petitioner and permit him to carry on quarrying operation in his Patta lands, comprised in S.F.No.192/2B of Koothanatham Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, measuring an extent of 1.25.5 Hectares, as per the order, dated 29.04.2013, passed by the first respondent.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner submits that he is the owner of Patta land, comprised in S.F.No.192/2B of Koothanatham Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, measuring an extent of 1.25.5 Hectares. The said land consists of Quartz and Feldspar and hence he made an application, dated 21.08.2008, to the second respondent, seeking permission to carry on quarrying operation in the said land for a period of 20 years on payment of necessary charges. The application filed by him was forwarded by the second respondent to the first respondent on 30.05.2008 for passing of necessary orders and the first respondent, on receipt of the same, directed second respondent to inspect the quarry land and to file a technical report. The second respondent, based on the direction given by the first respondent, called for a technical meeting on 03.07.2009 and called upon him, other field officers and local people to call for objection. Since the area applied for lease does not require consent from H.C.D.A., it was further proceeded with. Subsequently, after all the inspections are over, his request of mining has been approved by the Regional Controller of Mines, Bangalore, vide order dated 04.10.2010 and the same was duly submitted to the concerned authorities. The Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, in their Memorandum, dated 18.05.2012, the letter No.10633/MM6/2008, dated 29.11.2012, was received by the office of the first respondent on 29.12.2012. Thereafter, he sent a reminder letter, dated 01.02.2013, to the first respondent enclosing all the facts. Subsequently, he filed a mining lease application in Form No.I along with necessary charges and documents. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode, sent a favorable report and the Assistant Director (Geology and Mining), Namakkal, has also by a technical report, recommended that the application land is fit for lease.
3. Further, he submits that all the authorities have recommended for grant of lease and the first respondent, by order dated 29.04.2013, has directed the second respondent to execute lease deed in favour of him and passed the following order:-
13) Under the circumstance stated above in exercise of powers delegated to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, vide, G.O.Ms.No.133 Ind.MMA1 Department, dated 04.05.1998, mining lease is hereby granted in favour of Thiru.P.Shanmugam, Guthagoundampalayam, Avinasipatti Post, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District for Quartz and Feldspar over an extent of 1.25.5 Hectares of Patta lands in S.F.No.192/2B of Koothanatham Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, for a period of 20 years, as per Sections 8(1) and 10(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation), Act, 1957, subject to the following conditions in addition to the conditions specified in the Annexure.
(i) The applicant should allow and maintain safety distance of 7.5 Metres all along the boundary of the applied area and should not cause any hindrance to the adjacent Pattadars. and
(ii) A safety distance of 50 Meters should be left out for the cover processing Mill located near the southern boundary of the area applied for mining lease.
(iii) As per the instructions of the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, in letter F.No.10/75/2008-MV, dated 23.12.2010, the applicant should conduct explorations in his lease hold areas and estimate the reserves in UNFC system within one year from the date of registration of executed lease deed and submit report to the Indian Bureau of Mines under Rule 27(3) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
(iv) The Financial Assurance, as required under Rule 23-F of Mineral Concession and Development Rules, 1988 (amended 2003) should be submitted by the grantee to the Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Chennai, before execution of mining lease deed as per the condition No.I of the Indian Bureau of Mines, letter dated 04.10.2010.
(v) The applicant should submit the latest mining due clearance certificate and income tax clearance before the execution of the lease deed.
(vi) The consent to operate from the State Pollution control Board under the provisions of the Act, 1980 and Water Act, 1974 shall be obtained by the applicant.
14) The lease deed shall be executed within six months from the date of issuing of orders as per rule 31(1) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
15) The period of mining lease shall take effect only from the date of registration of the executed lease deed, as stipulated in Rule 31(2) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The above grant is liable to be cancelled if it is found that it was grossly in equitable or was made under a mistake of fact or owing to misinterpretation of fraud or in excess of authority.
16) The applicant company shall pay a deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) as prescribed in rule 32 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 before the execution of lease deed.
17) The royalty and dead rent or any other levy that may be levied by Government from time to time payable shall be paid at the rates prescribed under second and third schedule of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
18) The surface rent and water charges at such rates as the land revenue and other cesses assessable on the land shall be paid.
19) Mode of payment of royalty, dead rent and surface rent or any other levy that may be levied by the Government from time to time and shall be paid without any deduction by the leasee.
20) Belated payment of any levy to the Government will be charged with interest at the rate specified in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
21) The usual and special conditions appended to this order are subject to such further modifications and alteration as may be included in the lease deed when finalized.
22) The District Collector, Namakkal, is requested to take necessary further action for execution of lease deed in the prescribed form incorporating all the conditions specified in this order and got registered. The date of lease deed execution and registration should be reported to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining. The District Collector, Namakkal, is also requested to ensure the compliance by the lessee of the amended provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957, Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, Mines Act, 1952, Metalliferous Mines Regulations Act, 1961, Environment and Forest Act and other Acts and rules including the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 in force.
4. The petitioner further submits that as per Rule 31(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the lease deed has to be executed by the authorities within a period of six months from the date of issue of order of granting lease as per Rule 31(1) of Mineral Concession Rules. Clause 15 of the order, dated 29.04.2013, passed by the first respondent reads as follows:
15) The period of mining lease shall take effect only from the date of registration of the executed lease deed, as stipulated in Rule 31(2) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The above grant is liable to be cancelled if it is found that it was grossly in equitable or was made under a mistake of fact or owing to misinterpretation of fraud on in excess of authority. In the present case, grant under Rule 31(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 has been signed on 27.05.2013 and the last date for executing the lease deed is on 26.05.2013. The lease deed is not registered in favour of him within a stipulated period of six months. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the Sub-Treasury, after two years. In spite of several reminders and requests, the second respondent, without replying, is silently keeping the lease deed. The second respondent has to discharge the statutory function of execution of the lease deed and the first respondent being the highest authority to grant lease under Rule 31(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, is only forwarding the same to the second respondent to execute the lease deed and sending the same to the first respondent and to the Government. Because of the deliberate inaction on the part of the second respondent in not registering the lease deed, he will be financially ruined and all his efforts to carry on quarrying operations would be of no avail. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition seeking the relief as stated above.
5. The second respondent filed his counter affidavit stating that the first respondent, vide order dated 29.04.2013, has granted mining lease to the petitioner to carry on quarrying operations in his land, comprised in S.F.No.192/2B of Koothanatham Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, measuring an extent of 1.25.5 Hectare, for a period of 20 years, subject to certain conditions. In condition No.14 of the lease, it is stated that the lease deed shall be executed within six months from the date of issuing of orders as per Rule 31(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Accordingly, on 19.08.2013, the petitioner has submitted the required remittance challan for payment of surface rent and security deposit and non-judicial stamp paper, with regard to execution of lease deed as ordered in the said proceedings. As per the Special condition No.13(iv) of the lease and also as required under Rule 23F(3) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, the applicant should submit a financial assurance to the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), before the execution of lease deed in respect to the lease area. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted the financial assurance before the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) for Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of Bank guarantee given by Tamil Nadu Mercantile bank Ltd., Tiruchengode in respect of the subject mining lease area. The fact of submission of financial assurance before the Regional Control of Mines, I.B.M., Chennai, was informed to him vide letter, dated 25.11.2013. As per the conditions stipulated in the lease granting proceedings, the subject lease deed should be executed on or before 28.09.2013. The I.B.M., letter in respect of submission of financial assurance was received by this office only on 03.12.2013 and hence the stipulated time has expired and the lease deed could not be executed in time.
6. The second respondent further submits that in such circumstances, the first respondent was requested to grant further extension of time for execution of the said lease deed, vide letter dated 31.12.2013. As per Rule, 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the first respondent directed him, vide letter dated 24.03.2014, to send proposal to the Government through the first respondent, requesting further extension of time for execution of lease deed. Accordingly, he forwarded a new proposal to the Government through the first respondent, vide letter dated 16.04.2014 and the orders are awaited. At this juncture, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the relief as stated above.
7. He further submits that as per Rule 23F of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 and as per condition No.IX of the Indian Bureau of Mines, letter dated 04.10.2010, the financial assurance should be submitted by the grantee to the Regional Control of Mines, Chennai, before execution of a mining lease deed. Though the petitioner is aware of the same, he submitted the financial assurance only on 31.10.2013 i.e., after expiry of six months. In turn, the Indian Bureau of Mines has intimated the said fact to him vide letter dated 25.11.2013 and the same has been received by his office on 03.12.2013. As per the conditions stipulated in Para-14 of the lease granting proceedings, the subject lease deed should be executed on or before 28.09.2013, but the financial assurance has been received by his office only on 03.12.2013. Therefore, the stipulated time granted by the lease granting authority has expired on 28.09.2013 and hence the lease deed could not be executed.
8. He further submits that as per the direction given by the first respondent, the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Secretariat, Chennai, was requested to grant further extension of time for execution of lease deed in respect of quartz & feldspar mining lease granted to the petitioner, vide letter dated 16.04.2014, through the first respondent. Once the order is received, further steps will be taken immediately. Therefore, causing of delay for execution of lease deed is only due to the delay on the part of the petitioner, but not on the part of the District Administration. Therefore, at this juncture, the contentions of the petitioner against the District Administration deserve no consideration as it is devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. Hence, he prays to dismiss this writ petition.
9. The highly competent counsel Mr.K.R.Krishnan appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the patta land comprised in Survey No.192/2B, to an extent of 1.25.5 hectares, situated at Koothanatham Village, Namakkal District. The entire land is consisting of Quartz and Feldspar. Hence, the petitioner made an application to the respondents and sought permission to quarry for a period of 20 years on payment of necessary charges. The said land is not suitable for cultivation. The petitioner's application dated 21.08.2008 has been forwarded by the District Collector to the first respondent herein. Subsequently, the Geology Department had forwarded the application to the District Collector, Namakkal for inspection and technical report. The highly competent counsel further submits that the Geology Department had sent a proceedings dated 29.04.2013 to the District Collector for mining lease for a period of 20 years after imposing some conditions. The District Collector had not executed the release deed in favour of the petitioner for operating the quarry. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition.
10. The highly competent Government Advocate Mr.V.Shanmugasundar appearing for the respondents submit that the first respondent had granted a lease dated 29.04.2013 for quarrying mines in his patta lands at Koothanatham Village for a period of 20 years and imposed some special conditions. The petitioner should submit a financial assurance to the Indian Bureau of Mines before the execution of lease deed in respect of the subject lease area. However, the petitioner had submitted financial assurance before the Indian Burearu of Mines for Rs.1 lakh, in respect of the subject mining lease area. The same had been informed to the District Collector. However, the lease deed had not been executed within a period of six months. Hence, the above writ petition is not maintainable.
11. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the typed-set of papers, it is seen that the petitioner had not complied with the condition of making payment of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of six months. As such, the petitioner had breached the conditions laid down as per the Rules. However, considering the circumstances of the case, this Court gives liberty to the petitioner to submit fresh representation to the respondents concerned regarding late payment. After receipt of the representations, the respondents are directed to dispose the same after due consideration. Accordingly, the above writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.
15/12/2014
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
r n s
To:
1.The Commissioner of Geology
and Mining,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032,
2.The District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.8032 of 2014
15/12/2014